The Telangana High Court has unequivocally affirmed a daughter’s entitlement to inherit her father’s self-acquired property, dismissing an appeal that sought to negate her claim based on an alleged will and her perceived financial affluence. Justice M.G. Priyadarshini underscored the principle of equal property rights, refuting contradictory assertions and thereby establishing a precedent that underscores the court’s commitment to upholding fairness and justice in familial property disputes.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The Telangana High Court has set a precedent by affirming that a daughter’s financial well-being does not negate her entitlement to a share in her father’s self-acquired property. This decision came to light in the case of Tallapelli Kamalamma and another v. Tallapelli @ Jannu Ludia Bloosom, where Justice M.G. Priyadarshini dismissed an appeal against a sister, reinforcing her right to claim her inheritance.
The case revolved around a dispute between siblings over the partition of their deceased father’s property. The brother, in his appeal, presented a will purportedly executed by their father, suggesting that due to the sister’s “good financial status,” she was excluded from inheriting any portion of his self-acquired assets. The trial court, however, found the will to be unconvincing and ruled in favor of the sister, a decision that was subsequently upheld by the High Court.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Upholds Press Freedom, Dismisses PIL Against The Print Article on RAW
Justice Priyadarshini, in her judgment, emphasized-
“Even for the sake of arguments, if we consider the alleged Will Deed to be genuine, in the alleged Will Deed it was clearly mentioned that since plaintiff was having a good financial status, she is not entitled for any share in the self-acquired properties of her father. Merely because plaintiff is having good financial status, her right to seek share in the self-acquired properties of her father cannot be denied.”
The appellant-brother raised multiple contradictory arguments during the appeal. Firstly, he contended that the sister had already received her share through dowry during her wedding. The court, however, found no evidence supporting this claim and stressed that even if dowry was provided, it does not preclude the sister from claiming a share in her father’s self-acquired property.
Furthermore, the appellant argued that a will executed by the mother, obtained recently, stated that the sister should not be entitled to a share. The court dismissed this will, highlighting that the mother, in her written statement before the trial court, affirmed that both her children were entitled to one share each in the self-acquired property of her deceased husband.
ALSO READ: Gauhati High Court Grants Bail to ACS Officer Accused of PSC Recruitment Fraud
The court addressed the appellant’s claim that the sister had enjoyed certain agricultural land and retained the proceeds from its sale, implying that her share had been received. However, the court found no evidence supporting this and emphasized the lack of proof that the sister was allowed to keep the sale proceeds.
The judgment also addressed the brother’s contention that the sister had been allowed to enjoy and subsequently sell certain agricultural land, suggesting this as an acknowledgment of her receiving her share.
The court clarified-
“If at all the plaintiff was allotted her share in the family properties at the time of her marriage itself, there is no necessity for the defendant No.2 [brother] to permit the plaintiff to retain the sale proceeds received by alleged sale of the property admeasuring Ac. 1.10 guntas.”
The court also dismissed the argument that the sister intended to claim her brother’s properties through an unwritten partition, noting that such claims were not mentioned in the appellant’s written statement.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Schedules Hearing for Shibu Soren’s Appeal in Lokpal Inquiry
Addressing the alleged will deed executed by the appellant’s mother in 2010, the court found it peculiar that the suit was filed in 2009, a year before the alleged will was created. Additionally, the court noted the absence of any mention of the alleged will deed in the joint statement filed by the plaintiff and his mother in response to the suit.
